The millenium?

End Times
User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:58 pm

Not that Jeff needs me speaking for him but...The picture that is being painted in Isaiah 65 is the same picture that is being painted in Isaiah 11. And Paul said in Romans 15 that this was happening in the first century. The idea of clean and unclean animals laying down was something that a first century Jew would have understood very clearly.

Jews = clean animals
Gentiles = unclean animals
I don't think so, PsychoMike! The contrast is not between clean animals and unclean animals, but between vicious animals and gentle animals, or between any dangerous creature, and a gentle and meek creature. The whole tenor of the passages indicate this. For example, in
Isaiah 11:6-9

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

I searched, but could not find that Paul said that these things were happening in the first century. Would you please quote Paul's specific words which make you think this is the case?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_psychohmike
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: lakewood, Ca.

Post by _psychohmike » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:19 pm

Paidion wrote:
Not that Jeff needs me speaking for him but...The picture that is being painted in Isaiah 65 is the same picture that is being painted in Isaiah 11. And Paul said in Romans 15 that this was happening in the first century. The idea of clean and unclean animals laying down was something that a first century Jew would have understood very clearly.

Jews = clean animals
Gentiles = unclean animals
I don't think so, PsychoMike! The contrast is not between clean animals and unclean animals, but between vicious animals and gentle animals, or between any dangerous creature, and a gentle and meek creature. The whole tenor of the passages indicate this. For example, in
Isaiah 11:6-9

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.

They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

I searched, but could not find that Paul said that these things were happening in the first century. Would you please quote Paul's specific words which make you think this is the case?
Nonetheless Pai that does not change the fact that they are clean and unclean animals. Nor does what you said change the fact that the animals that were let down on the sheet that Peter saw on the rooftop were unclean animals that were directly speaking of the gentiles. And mind you the Jews were if I understand things correctly concerned with being ritually clean...Biblically speaking.

And the exact passages is ROMANS 15. You should read chapter 14 as well for the greater context and to understand why Paul chose to quote Isaiah 11 to support and make his point.

Then again I suppose you will just say that he is quoting it because it sounds good. Or that he was only talking about that verse in isolation. Sorry...That's not how it works. New testament authors simply quoted verses from the midst of their contextual passages to show fulfillment of the whole. You can't simply pick and choose which verses of OT prophetic passages are being fulfilled. That's bad Bible interpretation.

Mike
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.

Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:14 pm

Nonetheless Pai that does not change the fact that they are clean and unclean animals.
So in illustrating peaceful conditions in those days by stating that the sucking child will play over the hole of the asp, which would be the "clean animal"? The sucking child?

Are there not sometimes partial fulfillment of prophecy? When people were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues on that special day of Pentecost, Peter declared that those events were fulfillment of prophecy. He quoted even the parts of the prophecy which did not come to pass at that time:

For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yes, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ Acts 2:15-21

Then we must recognize that the writers of the New Testament did not always understand "fulfillment" in the same sense as today's believers.
For example Jesus "fulfilled" the scripture "Out of Egypt have I called my son," in that He, the Son of God, returned from Egypt to his home. But the original statement was made to indicate that God had called his son Israel (Israel's descendants) out of Egypt in order to bring them to the promised land.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_psychohmike
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: lakewood, Ca.

Post by _psychohmike » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:19 pm

Paidion wrote:Then we must recognize that the writers of the New Testament did not always understand "fulfillment" in the same sense as today's believers. For example Jesus "fulfilled" the scripture "Out of Egypt have I called my son," in that He, the Son of God, returned from Egypt to his home. But the original statement was made to indicate that God had called his son Israel (Israel's descendants) out of Egypt in order to bring them to the promised land.
Why don't you then show us what parts of of Isaiah 11:1-9 weren't fulfilled. And give us a method of interpretation that would convince us to believe that your way of seeing things is correct.

Just to be fair, I will give you mine first.

Isaiah 11:1-9 describes a period of time somewhere off in the future from Isaiah's perspective. A time when there shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse(Jesus). <---A first century event.

The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him. <---A first century event.

He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes. <---A first century event.

These things we can clearly see and I feel sure can agree that the first three verses were all a part of Jesus ministry. The thing is though, verses 1-9 are a continuous discourse.

And then what does verse 10 say? AND IN THAT DAY...

In what day you might ask...In that day described in verses 1-9.

AND IN THAT DAY, there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious.”

It does not say in the beginning of that day or in part of that day...It says...AND IN THAT DAY.

If Paul as interpreter of Israels prophetic scriptures says that verse 10 of Isaiah 11 is fulfilled. Then verses 1-9 have to be fulfilled because they are encapsulated within verse 10 by the simple statement, "And in that day."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.

Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary

_psychohmike
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: lakewood, Ca.

Post by _psychohmike » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:59 pm

Hello-lo-lo-lo. Pai-ai-ai-ai. Are you there-re-re-re? Hello-lo-lo-lo!!!

Any thoughts or a reply on my last post???

Would love to know your thoughts.

Mike
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.

Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:35 pm

Greetings and salutations, Psy!

Pleas be patient.! I have some catching up to do in the post re the purpose of the death of Christ. This takes priority over mere eschatology.
It might be a week or more before I reply to your post.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_psychohmike
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: lakewood, Ca.

Post by _psychohmike » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:40 pm

Paidion wrote:Greetings and salutations, Psy!

Pleas be patient.! I have some catching up to do in the post re the purpose of the death of Christ. This takes priority over mere eschatology.
It might be a week or more before I reply to your post.
Yes...yes, of course. One could not possibly understand the end of salvation if they haven't worked out the beginning of it.

Ciao!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.

Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary

_
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Isaiah 65

Post by _ » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:30 pm

Your discussion about how Isaiah 65 does or doesn't relate to the Millenium is reminiscent of some writing I've done on this topic:

_______________________________________________________

I recently received this statement from someone interested in investigating the Preterist understanding of Eschatology:

"I am unable to defend this position [that we are currently in the Millennium of Revelation chapter 20] from [some friends] who are pointing out what appears to be valid arguments from scriptures pertaining to the 1,000 year reign. (Like Lion and lamb lying down together) [Isaiah 65] Maybe this is figurative, but I'm sensing that I should keep my study more to myself until I find out more how to defend it..."

So, in response, let's take a look at the passage referred to, which is Isaiah 65:18-25:

18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.

19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.

20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach [a] a hundred
will be considered accursed.

21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the works of their hands.

23 They will not toil in vain
or bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the LORD,
they and their descendants with them.

24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.

25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.


We have pictured here a glorious future for Israel, one in which their fortunes will dramatically improve, where God brings them success, longevity, prosperity, and peace.

But, say some, this passage can't be describing "the new heavens and the new earth" of Revelation 21 and 22 (the eternal state of the saved), because doesn't this passage state that although people would live long, there would still be death? Doesn't it also imply that children would be being born, which we know according to Jesus' word won't be happening in the "world to come"?

Because of these questions, most Futurists say that this passage must be referring to a future, earthly millennial reign of Christ from the physical city of Jerusalem for a thousand years, one in which Jesus brings a state of near (but not full) perfection to the world.

But here's where I'm going to have to ask your forgiveness for a bit of deceit, because I left out a very important verse in the passage above to prove an important point.

This whole passage section of Isaiah 65 begins not with verse 18, but rather with the all-important transitional verse 7. I will now reproduce the passage with verse 7 to begin:

17 "Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.



What's the context of this passage, then? Is it the millennial reign of Christ depicted in Revelation 20 Or isn't it, rather, the eternal state known as the "New Heavens and New Earth" described in Revelation 20 and 21 (and 2 Peter 3:10-15)?? It should be obvious.

Now, for some considerations:

If this passage is about the "eternal state" described in Rev. 20 and 21, then why does it imply that death will still be occurring to some degree? Why are the descriptions Isaiah gives so "physical" or "earthly" sounding?

According to Dr. Larry Pechawer (among others):

"The key to the language [in Isaiah 65]... is that the Old Testament prophet is describing God's "new creation" in terms of "ideal existence" as the ancient Hebrews would have envisioned it".

Actually, the passage doesn't really state anything but "hypotheticals" about death and birth in order to illustrate the glories of the New Heavens and Earth.

In verse 19 of this passage (see above), Isaiah says that "the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it [Jerusalem]* no more"**. Well, how can that be if there is actually death occurring? The answer must be that death is not occurring.

To cement this, check out another passage in Isaiah:

Isaiah 25:
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;

8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.


The mountain here is Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Clearly, during these "New Heavens and New Earth" there is actually no death, despite the hypothetical language.

In closing, I'd like to point out the problems with the view that this passage in Isaiah is talking about a future, earthly, political, millennial reign of Jesus. Futurist ideas of this millenium are quite outlandish: Christians who lived before the Tribulation are envisioned to be resurrected and living alongside 'mortals' with 'miraculously extended lifespans' who have lived through the Tribulation. Also, this Futurist vision of the millennium focuses on a physical state of Israel and a rebuilt Temple, things which the New Testament authors rejected in favor of the "Kingdom not of this world" (see my article "Israel and the Church"). I could say more, but that's enough for now.

Questions? Comments?

*It's important to note that to the Christian, the future, glorious "Jerusalem" described here is not an earthly city, but the Church itself, and the future abode of the Church. If you're not convinced on that, please read the article in this forum entitled "Israel and the Church".

** This verse is the parallel passage to another of John's descriptions of the eternal state in Rev. 21:4:

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

___________________________________________________________

So, I see Isaiah 65 as more about the "eternal state" than about "the Millenium", though I do have some agreement with pyschomike about the animal imagery in the passage and also the fact that Christians viewed themselves as already enacting the ultimate realities of the News Heavens and the Earth (just obeying Jesus' injuction to pray-- and act-- that 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done in heaven as it is in earth)

Also, though I don't see any reason to see the Millenium as a literal 1,000 yr period for the reasons others have stated, it does seem to me that Revelation and Peter and even Luke do imply a lengthy time period. I'm not sure if that totally impinges on fully embracing the idea of "imminence" or not.

I disagree with Full Preterists, however who see the Millenium as the period between Jesus' resurrection and AD 70.

I see the Millenium as beginning with AD 70 and continuing until the return of Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:50 pm

Psychomike to Paidion wrote:Why don't you then show us what parts of of Isaiah 11:1-9 weren't fulfilled. And give us a method of interpretation that would convince us to believe that your way of seeing things is correct.
There are many. But verse 4 should suffice for now:

... but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

The wicked are still taking advantage of the poor. The wicked are still around.

You may be able to discover a couple of isolated events in the first century in which justice was done for the poor, and certain wicked people were killed. But you find that in every other century too, including the centuries before Christ.

If this passage references only those isolated cases, it does not seem very significant.

I don't have a "method" of interpretation. I understand it just as the church of the first two and a half centuries understood it --- just as the so-called "post-trib futurists" of today understand it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”